Torture,Dignity, and Humiliation

Several recent analyses of torture focus on the humiliation torture inflicts on the victim as the principal evil inherent in torture. This paper challenges this focus by arguing that the connection between torture and humiliation is not a necessary one. Though it is true that most contemporary usages of torture humiliate, it is shown that this is dependent on both the context of the torture and the specific means of torture applied. It is demonstrated that, in certain circumstances, torture is feasible without inflicting the humiliation contemporary accounts of torture identify. At a theoretical level, it may even be possible to use torture as a way of explicitly expressing respect. The paper, therefore, warns against hinging the entire case against torture on humiliation and argues that we should scrutinize other ways in which torture may violate dignity, too.     

When Beliefs Lead to (Im)Moral Action: How Believing in Torture's Effectiveness Shapes the Endorsement of Its Use

Does believing in torture's effectiveness shape the endorsements of its use? Using a multimethod approach across six studies, we provide converging evidence that efficacy beliefs can help increase understanding of individual differences and situational influences on torture support. Studies 1a and 1b found that torture opinions contained more efficacy‐based language than other types of harm and that people relied more on torture efficacy than torture's inherent morality when conveying their views. Study 2 assessed predictors of torture favorability including effectiveness and other key covariates, revealing that efficacy beliefs strongly predicted torture favorability—an association that retained its predictive validity above and beyond individual differences known to influence torture support. Mediation analyses further showed that efficacy beliefs explained key associations with torture support. Studies 3 and 4 used moral dilemmas requiring decisions about torture versus other harm. Results showed that individuals who believed harm would be effective were more likely to endorse its use; this was especially evident for torture judgments. Study 5 replicated the torture‐efficacy effect while also revealing efficacy effects for other interrogation techniques, thus suggesting the effect is driven more by the instrumental objective of torture than harm or moral violations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

The effects of torture‐related stressors on long‐term complex post‐traumatic symptoms in South Korean torture survivors

This study explored whether perceived distress from specific stressors during and after torture explain long‐term complex post‐traumatic symptoms of South Korean torture survivors. We conducted a cross‐sectional survey of survivors who had been tortured by the homeland regime from the 1970s to the 2000s. Data from 206 survivors were gathered by key informants using target sampling and snowballing techniques. Project staff designed scales to encompass the specific types of stressors related to torture techniques used in Korea. Frequencies and distress ratings of exposure to torture, post‐torture psychosocial stressors and physical damage related to torture were gathered. Psychological symptoms were assessed by the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised‐Korean version and subscales of the Symptom Checklist 90‐Revised‐Korean version. Perceived distress from torture stressors was mainly divided into factors representing physical, psychological and deprivation torture by adapting a principal axis factor analysis. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that distress from psychological torture explained post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that distress from deprivation explained PTSD and anxiety after controlling for demographic variables, psychological preparedness, time span since torture and distress from trauma other than torture. Among post‐torture stressors, distress from physical damage related to torture and social exclusion were strong indicators of complex symptoms.     

The Purposes of Torture

Abstract

In this essay, I take seriously Jeremy Bentham’s caution against treating torture as though it were a single phenomenon, susceptible to moral justification or condemnation independently of the purposes for which it is used. My aim is to identify the types of torture that occur nowadays. I discuss a number of forms of violence that have recently been identified as types of torture, including interrogational, terroristic, dehumanising and sadistic torture, as well as torture as a form of punishment. To this list of types I add a further, often overlooked, type: ‘spectacular’ torture as described by Michel Foucault. Rather than obsolete, as Foucault’s Disciple and Punish might suggest, I argue that there is no reason why a form of spectacular torture could not take place today. I consider the possibility that the torture that has taken place at Guantanamo Bay is of this kind.     

What constitutes torture?: psychological impediments to an objective evaluation of enhanced interrogation tactics

Torture is prohibited by statutes worldwide, yet the legal definition of torture is almost invariably based on an inherently subjective judgment involving pain severity. In four experiments, we demonstrate that judgments of whether specific interrogation tactics constitute torture are subject to an empathy gap: People who are experiencing even a mild version of the specific pain produced by an interrogation tactic are more likely to classify that tactic as torture or as unethical than are those who are not experiencing pain. This discrepancy could result from an overestimation of the pain of torture by people in pain, an underestimation of the pain of torture by those not in pain, or both. The fourth experiment shows that the discrepancy results from an underestimation of pain by people who are not experiencing it. Given that legal standards guiding torture are typically established by people who are not in pain, this research suggests that practices that do constitute torture are likely to not be classified as such.     

The conflicting influences of religiosity on attitude toward torture

This research examines the thesis that religiosity has conflicting influences on Americans' attitudes about the use of torture on terrorism suspects: an organic influence favoring opposition to torture and a discursively driven influence favoring support of torture. In each of two national samples, religiosity had both a direct effect toward opposition to torture and an indirect effect-via conservative political alignment-toward support of torture. Multiple-group analyses revealed that the direct effect toward opposition to torture did not vary across Americans with differing levels of exposure to political discourse, whereas the indirect effect toward support of torture via conservative political alignment was much stronger among Americans highly exposed to political discourse. Among such individuals, the indirect effect was so strong that it completely counteracted the competing direct effect. Discussion focuses on the competing influences that a single nonpolitical psychological characteristic may have on a political preference.     

The Effects of Moral and Pragmatic Arguments Against Torture on Demands for Judicial Reform

Torture can be opposed on the basis of pragmatic (e.g., torture does not work) or moral arguments (e.g., torture violates human rights). Three studies investigated how these arguments affect U.S. citizens' attitudes toward U.S.‐committed torture. In Study 1, participants expressed stronger demands for redressing the injustice of torture when presented with moral rather than pragmatic or no arguments against torture. Study 2 replicated this finding with an extended justice measure and also showed the moderating role of ingroup glorification and attachment. Moral arguments increased justice demands among those who typically react most defensively to ingroup‐committed wrongdoings: the highly attached and glorifying. Study 3 showed that the effect of moral arguments against torture on justice demands and support for torture among high glorifiers is mediated by moral outrage and empathy but not guilt.     

FEMINIST APPROACHES TO RELIGION AND TORTURE

Feminists look critically at any infliction of pain on others, usually requiring that it be consensual, and often both consensual and for the benefit of the person afflicted. Most torture of women is not recognized under official definitions of torture because it is not performed by or with the consent of (government) officials. Women are, however, also victims of torture under official definitions as military or civilian prisoners or as members of defeated populations in war, and are more often subjected to sexual torture, which until recently has not been understood either as torture or even a war crime. Rape, especially serial gang rape, it is argued, should be understood as torture, as the essence of torture is the use of severe pain to obscure or obliterate the victim's sense of agency.     

Torture and judgments of guilt

Although torture can establish guilt through confession, how are judgments of guilt made when tortured suspects do not confess? We suggest that perceived guilt is based inappropriately upon how much pain suspects appear to suffer during torture. Two psychological theories provide competing predictions about the link between pain and perceived blame: cognitive dissonance, which links pain to blame, and moral typecasting, which links pain to innocence. We hypothesized that dissonance might characterize the relationship between torture and blame for those close to the torture, while moral typecasting might characterize this relationship for those more distant from it. Accordingly, this experiment placed participants into one of two different roles in which people may be exposed to torture. Participants in the proximal role of prison staffer saw suffering torture victims as relatively more guilty, while participants in the relatively distant role of a radio listener saw suffering victims as more innocent.     

Physical Correlates of Torture Exposure in Karen Refugees

We explored associations between torture history and physical health symptoms of 111 Karen refugees newly arrived to the United States. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of electronic health data collected at the initial refugee health-screening exam. Unique to this analysis was the exploration of relationships between torture exposure, war trauma, and presenting physical and psychological health issues. We identified no unique effects of torture on physical health above and beyond trauma exposure. Overall, in our sample we found a high prevalence of underlying infectious conditions, pain, and hypercholesterolemia, regardless of torture exposure. We discuss effects of war trauma and torture experiences on physical exam findings and implications for future research.     

Torturers and the Tortured

Abstract

Patrick Lenta and Jessica Wolfendale have written two very thoughtful discussions on torture. A central question that arises in responding to these essays in terms of my recent book, Stoic Warriors, is whether ancient Stoicism affords any insights into both the propensity to inflict torture as well as the capacity to endure it. Wolfendale suggests that the learned capacity to endure torture, and in particular, becoming desensitised to pain, may be part of the psychological background that informs a willingness to inflict torture. Training in resisting torture, such as that which special operations troops typically go through, involves not only learning techniques, which can then be reverse engineered in applying torture (what some argue has happened in Guantanamo Bay), but also learning the kind of stress inoculation that makes one willing to use those techniques. In short, military training that involves torture resistance hardens one’s soul and makes one indifferent to the suffering that torture involves. This indifference, Wolfendale claims, is not unlike Stoic apathy. I want to argue, on the contrary, that Stoic apathy is substantively different. However, before making the case, I take up a number of other preliminary points raised in both papers. I conclude with some remarks about interrogation in general.     

The effects of torture-related injuries on long-term psychological distress in a Punjabi Sikh sample

Torture survivors often report chronic debilitating physical and psychological distress. Prior research on the relationship between physical and psychological trauma suggests that the 2 are not independent. Injury sustained during torture may increase the likelihood of subsequent distress as either a moderator or mediator. For long-term psychopathology in a sample of Punjabi Sikh survivors of human rights violations (N = 116), chronic injuries mediated the path between torture and posttraumatic stress disorder, specifically the severity of numbing symptoms. Although injuries were associated with major depression, torture was not, and injuries did not moderate the relationship between major depression and torture. Chronic injuries may represent trauma severity or persistent traumatic cues. These findings emphasize connections between physical and psychological trauma and the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to torture treatment.     

The Understanding and Treatment of Immigrant Trauma Survivors: Finding the Right Mix

This paper reviews attempts by three authors to describe psychoanalytic conceptualizations and treatment of torture victims. It argues that because the transference-countertransference configuration with immigrants who have not suffered torture is very similar to that of torture survivors, that no special diagnostic categories, theories, or treatment methods are needed to work with torture survivors. Second, the paper contends that newer psychoanalytic paradigms such as Hoffman's Social Constructivism may assist clinicians to capture the richness and complexity of clinical work with torture survivors better than do traditional analytic conceptions such as neutrality. Via an analysis of the three papers in this volume, I conclude with a consideration of the strengths and the weaknesses of the field of cross-cultural psychotherapy in general.     

Torture Is the Ticking Time‐Bomb: Why the Necessity Defense Fails

Abstract : The essay asks whether the ‘necessity defense’ can be used to legitimate torture. By modifying the criteria so as to fit the case, it is argued that torture fails to meet the established norms of the historic just‐war tradition, which also underlie international law. ‘Interrogational,’‘terroristic,’ and ‘demonic’ aspects of torture are distinguished along the way. It is concluded that torture admits no necessity by which it can be justified.     

Is Corporal Punishment Torturous?

The aim of this article is to determine whether fixed courses of judicial corporal punishment (JCP) and non‐abusive corporal punishment of children (CPC) amount to torture. I assess the reasons that have been offered for distinguishing fixed courses of JCP from torture and argue that none is successful. I argue that non‐consensual JCP that inflicts severe pain is appropriately classifiable as torture, but that JCP that inflicts mild pain and entirely consensual JCP are not torturous. I consider whether any of the reasons offered for distinguishing JCP from torture can distinguish non‐abusive CPC from torture given certain important differences between CPC and JCP. I submit that none of these reasons is successful. I consider other possible reasons for distinguishing non‐abusive CPC that inflicts severe pain from torture and argue that none is successful. I conclude that fixed courses of non‐consensual JCP which inflict severe pain and non‐abusive CPC that inflicts severe pain are correctly classifiable as torture.     

Torture — The Case for Dirty Harry and against Alan Dershowitz

abstract Can torture be morally justified? I shall criticise arguments that have been adduced against torture and demonstrate that torture can be justified more easily than most philosophers dealing with the question are prepared to admit. It can be justified not only in ticking nuclear bomb cases but also in less spectacular ticking bomb cases and even in the so‐called Dirty Harry cases. There is no morally relevant difference between self‐defensive killing of a culpable aggressor and torturing someone who is culpable of a deadly threat that can be averted only by torturing him. Nevertheless, I shall argue that torture should not be institutionalised, for example by torture warrants.     

Les normes et standards de la documentation des allégations de torture et autres mauvais traitements selon le protocole d’Istanbul

Torture and ill treatment constitute a serious violation of basic human rights. Health professionals are actors capable of acting, in addition to caring for the victims, for the advent of a world without torture. Thorough investigation and substantiated documentation of allegations of torture can help victims to tell the truth about what has happened to them and support them in their quest for justice and reparation. They help victims to obtain credible evidence that torture has taken place, allowing them to assert their rights. Trained health professionals can document the physical and psychological trauma resulting from torture, and link them to specific torture practices with a very high level of credibility, using the Istanbul protocol, a manual on documentation of torture approved by the United Nations. Victims can use this evidence to formally file a complaint to substantiate allegations in civil or criminal cases, as a basis for their request for rehabilitation assistance, and as an official acknowledgment of the harm they have suffered. This work aims to point out the important role of the doctor in the process of documenting the allegations of torture and other ill treatment and the need for training on the ethical, legal and practical aspects of this intervention in order to participate in prevention, and fight against this crime.     

Torture, Terrorism and the State: a Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument

abstract   Much of the literature on torture in recent years takes the position of denouncing the barbarity of torture, while allowing for exceptions to this veto in extreme circumstances. The ticking-bomb argument, where a terrorist is tortured in order to extract information of a primed bomb located in a civilian area, is often invoked as one of those extreme circumstances where torture becomes justified. As the War on Terrorism intensifies, the ticking-bomb argument has become the dominant line of reasoning used by both academics and policy advisers to justify a legalized, state-sponsored program of torture.
This paper argues for the unconditional refutation of any attempt to justify torture, without exceptions. We argue against the consequentialist reasoning of the ticking-bomb argument not from a deontological position, but on consequentialist grounds. Empirical evidence suggests that the institutionalization of torture practices creates serious problems. Torture interrogation fails to fulfil its initial purpose as a low-cost life saver, while its long-term potential is the devastation of democratic institutions.     

TORTURE AND JUST WAR

I offer an argument for why torture, as an act of state‐sponsored force to gain information crucial to the well‐being of the common good, should be considered as a tactic of war, and therefore scrutinized in terms of just war theory. I argue that, for those committed to the justifiability of the use of force, most of the popular arguments against all acts of torture are unpersuasive because the logic behind them would forbid equally any act of mutilating or killing in battle. I will also argue that looking at torture through the perspective of the just war tradition forces us to place strictures on the practice that make it hard to justify, helps us to see why torture should never be legalized, helps us to clarify when circumstances might justify torture, and suggests what sort of character is required to recognize when those circumstances have occurred.